Frankly though, I find these discussions boring. Far more interesting to me is why do people care about voter apathy?
If people don't care to vote, that makes the votes of the people who do care about the election even more important. In theory, everyone wins. Alternatively, the argument could be made that the higher the voter turnout, the better the governance. But empirically, that's simply not true. Voter turnout in the post-Reconstruction era up until the turn of the century was higher than anything we've ever had, but no one know is going to say those presidents did a good job. That's clearly not how people see it. Voter apathy is seen as a sign that Americans don't care about politics, and are more content sitting at home watching television than "changing the fate of this great American nation." This, to me, gets to the core of civic religion. Voting is seen as more than just pulling a level for one candidate or another, it's a tradition. It's a tradition that commemorates the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, a history of American activism, a tradition celebrates some form of egalitarianism and inclusion. Its "perfectly rational" functions really aren't the ones that matter to people. And this seems obvious. People vote with their heart, not with their minds.
I'd just like to finish off by stating that I'm not necessarily dismissive or supportive of any of these arguments. I don't mean to condescend towards the people who see an emotional value in voting, nor those who see emotional value in not voting. And neither did I intend to attack those who view the entire process "rationally," whatever that may mean here.
(Pt. 2/2)
Frankly though, I find these discussions boring. Far more interesting to me is why do people care about voter apathy?
If people don't care to vote, that makes the votes of the people who do care about the election even more important. In theory, everyone wins. Alternatively, the argument could be made that the higher the voter turnout, the better the governance. But empirically, that's simply not true. Voter turnout in the post-Reconstruction era up until the turn of the century was higher than anything we've ever had, but no one know is going to say those presidents did a good job. That's clearly not how people see it. Voter apathy is seen as a sign that Americans don't care about politics, and are more content sitting at home watching television than "changing the fate of this great American nation." This, to me, gets to the core of civic religion. Voting is seen as more than just pulling a level for one candidate or another, it's a tradition. It's a tradition that commemorates the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution, a history of American activism, a tradition celebrates some form of egalitarianism and inclusion. Its "perfectly rational" functions really aren't the ones that matter to people. And this seems obvious. People vote with their heart, not with their minds.
I'd just like to finish off by stating that I'm not necessarily dismissive or supportive of any of these arguments. I don't mean to condescend towards the people who see an emotional value in voting, nor those who see emotional value in not voting. And neither did I intend to attack those who view the entire process "rationally," whatever that may mean here.
(Pt. 2/2)
like I said, fuck one-issue voters
like I said, fuck one-issue voters
Yeah Maple I'd like to see a proportional representational system too. And those are two of the major reasons I've heard for people giving for not wanting to vote either. A fellow classmate in one of my political science class said he's more closely aligned with Obama but he wouldn't vote for him because of religious and moral issues.
I think if you wanted to get more people involved in the political process that you would need the races to be more competitive, which isn't possible in some states because they favor one party so heavily over the other. Unless, more parties and candidates entered the race which isn't likely unless we change the voting systems and make it easier for new parties to form. As for voter apathy, I care about that not because of tradition but because I think the system would be better with more participation and more people to come up with new ideas to be implemented. Although that may not be the case as people are often uninformed when they vote, and as you said tend to vote with their hearts not minds. Although in another class I took many people said they don't vote because they feel unqualified and uninformed. So maybe at least a few people who are getting more involved after learning a little more will try to do their research before voting, but idk :/
Yeah Maple I'd like to see a proportional representational system too. And those are two of the major reasons I've heard for people giving for not wanting to vote either. A fellow classmate in one of my political science class said he's more closely aligned with Obama but he wouldn't vote for him because of religious and moral issues.
I think if you wanted to get more people involved in the political process that you would need the races to be more competitive, which isn't possible in some states because they favor one party so heavily over the other. Unless, more parties and candidates entered the race which isn't likely unless we change the voting systems and make it easier for new parties to form. As for voter apathy, I care about that not because of tradition but because I think the system would be better with more participation and more people to come up with new ideas to be implemented. Although that may not be the case as people are often uninformed when they vote, and as you said tend to vote with their hearts not minds. Although in another class I took many people said they don't vote because they feel unqualified and uninformed. So maybe at least a few people who are getting more involved after learning a little more will try to do their research before voting, but idk :/
waefwaefwikipedia There is now broad scientific and regulatory consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops is safe enough to eat.[44][45][46][47] The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[48] A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[49] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[50]
Those studies were flawed. The research was on rats for up to 90 days. New research is out and rats with GMO diets grow tumors and die after 580 or so days.
[quote=waefwaef][quote=wikipedia] There is now broad scientific and regulatory consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops is safe enough to eat.[44][45][46][47] The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[48] A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[49] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[50] [/quote][/quote]
Those studies were flawed. The research was on rats for up to 90 days. New research is out and rats with GMO diets grow tumors and die after 580 or so days.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/nY0M7IdNl7U[/youtube]
I voted no on 37.
Also waiting until 2014 for the prop 19 from 2010 to resurface without the BS part about it being legal to drive while high as fuck.
I voted no on 37.
Also waiting until 2014 for the prop 19 from 2010 to resurface without the BS part about it being legal to drive while high as fuck.
#15 youve ate gmo food your entire life dork
#15 youve ate gmo food your entire life dork
There is no such research that have rats growing cancer from a GMF diet.
There is no such research that have rats growing cancer from a GMF diet.